Infamous Dred Scott slavery case decision took place 150 years ago this week

kansascitykansan.com ^ | Thursday, March 8, 2007 | BRYAN F. Le BEAU

[Red Badger]

...and possibly with much worse consequences.............."

By that I meant there could have been a wholesale slaughter of former slaves that would have made the Holocaust of WWII look lame by comparison. After all, if they were not "citizens" then they had no protections. All it would have taken is a spark from a hothead to start the conflagrations............

[DeerfieldObserver]

There was no wholesale slaughter of slaves before the Civil War. There would be no economic purpose in Southerners destroying their "property".

The sensible proposal would have been for the slaveowners to be reimbursed for their freed slaves by the American taxpayer.

[Red Badger]

You're not getting my point. Had the Industrial Revolution ended slavery (voluntarily by the slaveowners), instead of the Civil War, the former, now freed, slaves would have had no place to go or work safely. Chaos would have been the rule of the day, open season on "illegals" as it compares to today.........

[Non-Sequitur]

From the time he was elected in November 1860 to April 12, 1861 is almost 6 months.

For five of those months he wasn't president and not if a position to negotiate anything.

Lincoln was very dogmatic in refusing any attempt at compromise. The Crittenden Compromise had been accepted by both sides to avoid the Civil War, but Lincoln vetoed it, and said it was time to call the South's "bluff".

I would point out that during the time the compromise was being negotiated the Southern states were walking out, so it doesn't look like there was any interest on their part. It was not acceptable to the Republicans because it guaranteed the expansion of slavery regarless of whether the people of a territory wanted it or not.

All the desire to avoid war is meaningless if there is none on the opposing side. And there was no desire on the part of the South for compromise or for peace.

Alas, history is always written by the Victors. That is why he is considered such a great president.

And the myths are written by the losers. Which is why you try to make him into a bad one.

[Non-Sequitur]

The decision of these judges (7-2) simply follows the Constitution.

And what part of the Constitution says that blacks, free or slave, could never be citizens?

[Non-Sequitur]

Once a particular state seceded, the Federal soldiers were no longer in Federal territory. For the most part, they withdrew - as they should have.

Nonsense. Sumter was a federal fort, built on land deeded to the government free and clear by the South Carolina legislature, paid for out of the federal treasury. It was not the property of South Carolina and the state had absolutely no legal claim to it even had the South Carolina secession been legal. Only Congress can dispose of federal property, and they didn't do so.

[since 1854]

In 1860, 94% of federal tax revenue was collected in the ports of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. Federal taxes collected in the South were nil, though federal spending there was high.

[Non-Sequitur]

Yes, and the Crittenden Compromise consisted of a series of Constitutional Amendment. Those passed both houses of Congress. Lincoln vetoed the legislation - so they were never offered to the States for ratification. The Amendments (generally) would have limited the areas of the country where slavery was permitted.

You ought to read your own link. Crittenden's compromises were offered in the Senate on December 18, 1860. No vote was taken in either house and they were eventually tabled and never revisited. The proposed amendments never were voted on so that's why they didn't go to the states for ratification.

[since 1854]

President Lincoln did not veto the Crittenden Compromise. In fact, presidents have no role in the amendment process. You're wasting our time, just making things up as you go along.

[Non-Sequitur]

You may believe that now, after Lincoln won his War Against America.

Holy crap, 1854, we have a new one! Not War of Northern Aggression. Not War Between the States. Not a war against part of America. Now we have a war against all of America. Will the Southron sob stories never end?

If you dig a bit, you will find that the New York State Legislature voted upon whether to leave the Union several times before 1861.

I've dug...and can't find a single time. Can you provide some details please?

Lincoln could not imagine how the North would survive without the tax revenue from the South. He was a mercantilist of the very worst sort.

Oh Lord no, not the "South provided 90% of all tariff revenue' myth again.

[DeerfieldObserver]

Had the Industrial Revolution ended slavery (voluntarily by the slaveowners), instead of the Civil War, the former, now freed, slaves would have had no place to go or work safely. Chaos would have been the rule of the day, open season on "illegals" as it compares to today.........


You appear to be accurately describing the Reconstruction Period of American history 1866-1873. Youar right, I am not getting your point.

[DeerfieldObserver]

Lincoln let it be known that he opposed the Crittenden Compromise, and then the Republicans immediately dropped the proposal.

[DeerfieldObserver]

From the time he was elected in November 1860 to April 12, 1861 is almost 6 months.

"For five of those months he wasn't president and not if a position to negotiate anything"

This is an intellectually dishonest statement.

[Larry Lucido]

“The introduction of slavery amongst us,” he continued, was “in the providence of God, who makes the evil passions of men subservient to His own glory

So Justice Scott was a Calvinist?

Ducking for cover.

[Red Badger]

There would have been no Reconstruction, because there would have been no Civil War. And because there would have been no Civil War, there would have been no Emancipation Proclamation (for what it was worth), no Constitutional Amendments and no granting of Citizenship with all it Constitutional Protections and privileges to the now freed slaves. So the Civil War, for all its deaths and mayhems and turmoils, may have been the lesser evil of two possible outcomes. Pure speculations on my part..............

[DeerfieldObserver]

That was the spirit of the times. The Southerners thought that God clearly supported slavery, and Abraham Lincoln was equally convinced that God was against slavery.


And people wonder why there was a War between the States?

[untrained skeptic]

The Court's first major effort at rewriting the Constitution so that it would say what it "should say," rather than what it does say.

I have to disagree.

While I find slavery morally wrong. Legally slaves were property. It was clear that the writers of the Constitution had not intended for slaves to be treated as citizens.

Therefore the reasoning that freeing someone's slave was taking their property without due process was legally sound.

There were thousands of years of precedence of slaves being considered property and not having rights.

I abhor that attitude of Justice William Scott, but he wasn't changing the meaning of the Constitution from the intent of its authors.

I don't think the Justices ruled wrongly even though I abhor slavery. I believe that the Constitution needed changed, and fortunately it was.

[stainlessbanner]

Ususal suspects ping

[DeerfieldObserver]

The Supreme Court voided the Missouri Compromise, and thus usurped the power of the Congress and President of the United States.

Thank you, Mr. Taney.

[Non-Sequitur]

The sensible proposal would have been for the slaveowners to be reimbursed for their freed slaves by the American taxpayer.

Perhaps. But in order for it to work the Southern slaveowners would have to want to sell. I'm not aware of any interest at the time in the South for ending slavery, either through compensated or uncompensated means.